We post an assertion to be argued for or against, and ask all of our writers to come to the table for a good honest debate. Comments are now open to all readers.

ASSERTION:
Neither is it the government’s duty, nor is the government well-equipped, to make broad attempts to lift people out of poverty.

In this current debate on Health Care I’ve been rather surprised by the resistance from the conservative right to providing universal health care to the country. And with out getting into the politics of it too much I am curious how people of faith view the concept of Universal Health Care. I have always felt that if someone is starving you feed them, if someone is dying you try to save their life. Now I do not take this as meaning you can not charge for basic services but should you profit off of it? Is it okay that someone made a profit off of someone dying of cancer? Or if someone made a profit off of texts to raise money for something like Haiti Earthquake Relief?

I personally feel that there is a fairly clear moral and ethical line that should not be crossed. Feel free to read and join the discussion here at the AVJ Writer’s Debate.

ASSERTION:
The government should help to ensure that no business profits excessively off the sick, disabled, or poor.

Too often our elected officials use their official positions to spin, stretch and sometimes out right lie about any given issue that may be in debate in government. Recent examples of hyperbole overtaking logic and prudence would be the “spin” that the Health Care legislation included “Death Panels” or that the census was dangerous. Neither of these positions hold water or merit and those who made those assertions I’m certain are well aware of that as well. These were statements made by politicians for the sake of political theatre and ear catching sound bytes that might lead to a stronger base for their party and the appearance, however false, that they were fighting for the little guy, or grandma. The real victim in all this is the American people and the Bills themselves.

In the real everyday world if someone lied about someone else or someone’s product it could be considered slander and legal action could be taken. No such protection exists for Bills put into congress. This allows members to stretch the truth when talking about Bills in a manner that may lead to any one Bill’s defeat or passage and stands firmly in the way of real debate about the actual merits and consequences, positive or negative, of that bill. This causes confusion in the electorate and consequently good ideas get pushed aside because of the chaos created by such inappropriate behavior.

Far too often I hear folks talk about how corrupt their government is and how politicians “are just that way”. And far too often I see folks vote in the same people again and again and then act surprised when the economy collapses or when we find ourselves at war with an enemy in a country that never attacked us.

I in no way think taking an oath means they’ll suddenly be on better behavior up on the hill but perhaps some consequences for deception could limit those improper impulses. If they can not prove that what they said about a specific bill was true then they could be censured, fined or removed from office or worse, barred from ever serving again.

This is our country and they work for us – and they need to tell us the truth. It will, however, be up to us to be listening.

Here’s the link to the video that appeared in part on CNN today:

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-412773